DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he invoked the right to counsel during questioning by an investigator at the time of his arrest, and that his statements made thereafter without counsel present should have been suppressed. The Supreme Court properly found that the defendant did not invoke his right to counsel. During the investigator's recitation of the Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436), and immediately after he read to the defendant that portion which provides, "If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you without cost. Do you understand?", the defendant interjected, "I have counsel". The investigator then reread that Miranda warning to the defendant, and the defendant replied that he understood. After the defendant was apprised of his rights, he stated that he was willing to answer questions. The defendant's statement did not constitute an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel (see, People v. Glover, 87 N.Y.2d 838; People v. Hicks, 69 N.Y.2d 969; People v. Rowell, 59 N.Y.2d 727; People v. Diaz, 161 A.D.2d 789). Taken in context, the defendant was not requesting counsel to be present and, accordingly, the presence of counsel was not necessary to effectuate a valid waiver.
The defendant's remaining contention regarding a June 20, 1995, tape recording is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 20; People v. Cardona, 136 A.D.2d 556). In any event, the tape was properly admitted into evidence (see, People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520; People v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, cert denied 446 U.S. 942; People v. Eddins, 247 A.D.2d 548).